EBUSUAPANYIN ANDREW K. AMIHERE AND ANOR vs. AIRTEL COMMUNICATION LTD AND 2 ORS [2018]DLHC7058

Date	2018-12-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO E1/53/10
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7058

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

D.D. GWIRA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

SAMUEL KWESI AGBOTTAH ESQ. FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT.

[2018]DLHC7058
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >EBUSUAPANYIN ANDREW K. AMIHERE AND ANOR<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AIRTEL COMMUNICATION LTD AND 2 ORS<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT
NO E1/53/10&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 12TH DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>D.D.
GWIRA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SAMUEL KWESI AGBOTTAH ESQ. FOR THE 3RD
DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>A
small stretch of land granted to the 1stdefendant, a
Telecommunication company to mount a mast some time in 2009 sparked off the
instant suit. Granted by the 2nd defendant, with the consent of 3rd
defendant, the land is situate at a place the parties agreeably call BUKETO.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs pleadthat the said stretch forms part of a 77.15- acre land
belonging to their Alanwoba family of Ezinilibo in the Jomoro district which
family the 1st plaintiff heads.<o:p></o:p>They
averin their amended statement of claim filed on 28/11/16 that their
predecessors AdonleGyanzo and NwiahNkyiNdabia broke the land in its virgin
state over hundred years ago.<o:p></o:p>According
to them, when the grant was made to the 1st defendant and the latter
entered upon same to construct the mast, they caused their lawyers to write to
stop the work as they as owners had not made any such grant. Their consent was also
not sought before the 1st constructed the mast. Their protest was
however ignored. They allege the 3rd defendant has been selling
portions of their said land but insist the land belongs to them and the 3rd
defendant has no right to sell portions to anyone.<o:p></o:p>They
are therefore before this court claiming against the defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.
An order against the defendant company for the removal of its Telecom Mast
erected on plaintiffs’ land at Ezinlibo in the Jomoro District without their
knowledge or consent.<o:p></o:p>2.
Damages for trespass<o:p></o:p>3.
Recovery of possession<o:p></o:p>4.
An order restraining the 3rd defendant from continuing selling the
lands in around the area where 1st defendant has erected its Telecom
Mast which land is owned by 1st plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>5.
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant company, its agents, etc from
interfering with the plaintiffs’land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
1st defendant does not plead much by way of defence. Simply, it did
not need the consent of the plaintiff to construct the mast. Itdoes not also accept
that the land belongs to the plaintiff. Indeed, at the trial the 1st
defendant did not appear to give evidence. It obviously must have relied on the
2nd and 3rddefendants case being its ultimate grantors. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For
her part, the 2nd defendant names the 3rd defendant as
the owner of the land who made a grant of same to her late father. She denies
the plaintiffs’ claim to the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
3rd defendant is the occupant of the Ndumsuazo stool. His case is
that the entire BUKETO land was originally cultivated in its virgin state by
indigenes of Ndumsuazo. He mentions some of them as Eholade (deceased), Gyanzo,
Morkeh, and Amgbo. The land therefore had always formed part of his Ndumsuazo
stool land. He denies that the land belongs to Ezinilibo though he pleads that
his Buketo land shares boundaries with Ezinilibo and another stool called
Bonyere. <o:p></o:p>Further
the 3rd defendant claims, his stool has exercised acts of ownership
and control of the land granting portions to certain individuals to settle on
without let or hindrance from anybody including the plaintiffs’ predecessors.<o:p></o:p>The
3rd states that the 2nd defendant had every right to make
the grant to the 1st defendant and that he concurred the grant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At
the application for directions, the following issues were set down for trial:<o:p></o:p>